Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own. If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics. Our perceptions of Black Hawk Down, Behind Enemy Lines, and now, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage are shaped - nearly haunted - by the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the subsequent military operations in Afghanistan. Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes. But for poor aging action-pioneer Schwarzenegger, whose movie was postponed for three months by his nervous studio, the opposite is true. This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

The plot is vintage Arnold. He plays firefighter Gordon Brewer, who is drawn into international terrorism when his wife and son are blown up in a bombing carried out by Claudio ("The Wolf") Perrini. In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists. At the moment, that plot line seems a dubious one. When Brewer figures out that the ever politically squishy U.S. government isn't going to catch the Wolf (to avoid ruffling the feathers of the Columbian government), he decides to do it himself, tracking the Wolf through Panama to the dense jungles of Columbia, where he spends as much time dodging evil U.S. agents as he does hiding from evil Columbian guerrillas.

The movie is full of the now vintage Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion. And let's face it, Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken. His face is lined, his visage distinctly middle-aged. We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.

Watching the film, you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery. I suppose there are lots of people who wish they could get their hands on Osama Bin Laden's throat.

What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.

But Schwarzenegger's clunky ham-handedness is diminished, not enhanced by reality. The movie is too long, the ending loopy. What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant. Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another). He ought to ride off into the sunset while he still has his dignity and pride, and acknowledge that while he had a great ride, the reality of the world has finally overtaken him.

He enjoys these movies for the same reason programmers enjoy reusing code from earlier projects... less work and *generally* equal result. If you got millions of dollars to say the same lines over and over again from movie to movie wouldn't you continue?

Congratulations, Arnold (Yabenson, not Schwarzenegger). You are on topic and to the point, if I could I would mod you to infinity.

Katz does seem always to be anticipating his audience, gauging what they wish to hear from him, apparently still with some success. All the bitterness seems to be from people who once took his word as sincere.

As much as we appreciate the "news alert" that Schwarzenegger's career is over, we need to know what happened to Katz's plans to present a Q & A with Junis. Failure to "follow-up" his most notorious story [nytimes.com] is the nail in Katz's coffin as a "real" journalist.

The Times story linked above says, in part, that "Junis had agreed to take part in a public question-and- answer session on Slashdot.org soon, once things settle down a bit in Afghanistan." Haven't things settled down yet?

"He's already made his way to some sex sites, and wishes he had a printer. Ah, the indomitable human spirit." -- Check out this j-school weblog [nyu.edu] to see how Katz measures up to other reporters on the liberation of Kabul.

BBC says [bbc.co.uk] warlords are filling the power vaccum. The Taliban that ran those areas are being released. I give them 6 months to find they way back to the top in many rural areas.

As for the most wanted, you'll have to dig through
this [bbc.co.uk] and this [state.gov] and this [cnn.com]. Find other reports with more details and you'll find the quote about the 70% strength from a high ranking US offical (If I remembered which one, I would have a link for you) and the numbers (which change every week)

I assume you can find details about the US economy and the fact that Osama hasn't been found.

The US didn't win the gulf war (Sadam is still in power) and it looks like they they aren't going to win this one either since most of the boogie men will be alive when its done. The real question is will the people of Afganastan win this time?

I don't know if something noteworthy happened on the ninth of November, but if your talking about the day when a bunch of Islamic terrorists crashed a couple of planes in NY it reads 11/9!

Flamebait, -1 (where's your moderator points when you need them)

We all have our own cultural interpretations. In Mexico, they celebrate "Cinco de Mayo". We don't correct it and tell them that it's "Mayo de Cinco"...

The attack happened in America, on primarily American people - where we use the month/day convention. The other reason that it's sometimes referred to as "nine-eleven" is the similarity it has with the emergency telephone number "9-1-1".

Perhaps the terrorists chose this day on purpose to strike fear into the hearts of Americans by using our own culture against us. Perhaps they wanted us to forever remember that day as the "day of emergency". They failed, for the heroism of the emergency personnel (who happen to respond when you dial 9-1-1) turned out to be the great shining light of the day.

In summary, I feel it fitting to refer back to one of this nation's most important events in history as "September 11th", or "nine-eleven", or even "nine-one-one".

If, or when someone invades Europe from another continent and smashes 2,000+ people - perhaps your press will report it as 2.000 people, and you can refer to that date in infamy as "day/month". But until that time, get used to us Americans using "month/day". It's our culture. We tried to jetison the English measurement system for metric, it didn't happen.

Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion

This is exactly what I want to see when I go to a movie like this. A lot of testosterone based action! Anyone looking for some sort of deep statement regarding the "post-9/11" world is looking in the wrong place.

Good point, it is far too quick to expect any deep and meaningful releases based on the 9/11 attacks (both psychologically--would be offensive to victims this quick, and pyhsically--if someone is working on something that is going to be that great, it's going to take longer than 5 months to do).

If you're looking for non-action and more of a documentary isn't looking for it in the movie theater, but on CNN, A&E, or The History Channel (The Special on the World Trade Center released in the weeks after 9/11 on The History Channel was an excellent documentary--it was made before 9/11, but had added commentary where the commercials would normally go)

And yeah, right now any US Military Movie is going to do fantastic considering the Patriotism/Natoinalism abundant in the US right now--the same reason Bush has an 85% approval rating right now; you think he would even be over 60% or even 50% at this point in his term without the 9/11 disasters, when even the most popular presidents in our history were lucky to have 55% after their first year? (This is not an attack or support of him, that's for another discussion altogether)

The same has been true after any successful military campaign. Fickle to say, but it'll die off--it might take a few more years, but soon enough there will be another government scandal or more Enron fiascos to bring to light the negatives of the country once again. And then the normal military movies' popularity will die down and a 9/11 movie will be worthwhile and popular--if nothing else to remember and mourn.

[OT] This was and is the defining moment of the 15-30 year old generation. It is the first truly remarkable event that impacted so many that has happened in years (aside from various government scandals of course). And yes, we had the Gulf War, but for the most part, that was a campaign in which we measured American casualties in the 100's, not thousands.
[/OT]

Was I the only person who saw previews for this movie before September 11? It's easy to say retrospectively that this had its roots in September 11, but movies take a long time to write, film, and edit- unless you're suggesting that Hollywood was in on the plot.

If I recall correctly, the movie was set to be released not very long after September 11th -- meaning it was very nearly done, if not completely done. Then September 11th came, and they decided to delay it. I don't know if it changed very much in that period...

i do remember seeing some trailers on tv several weeks before 9/11, and i thought it was kind of strange how after 9/11, the movie seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. no on even mentioned that it was being pushed back that i ever heard. this movie was made without any influence of 9/11.

i've also noticed several people pointing out that 'gee, aren't there a lot of war movies coming out right now? it's all because of september 11th'. no it's not! i don't think some people know how long it takes to make a movie. you could easily spend weeks making a 5 minute short, so how long do you think a 2 hour movie takes?

I remember watching his movie Commando, where he rips a seat out of a small convertible so he can hide while this woman drives the car. Then, she gets run off the road and plants the car right into a telephone pole. Arnold gets up, asks her if she's OK, and she is. Cheesy to the extreme.

There's also a scene where he kills a terrorist by throwing a circular saw blade into his head, like a frisbee. Cheesy.

Arnold movies (the best was still Conan, or maybe Kindergarten Cop) were always most watchable to those persons with very powerful disbelief suspensors. Mine are getting worn out, so I'm going to pass on this movie. That's the reason I won't watch it - not September 11th.

I heard that. Great reference and entirely appropriate. Even more so would be "The Siege". Denzel, as relatively few others, can really make you forget he's Denzel and in the context of the film leave you well acquainted with the character rather than the actor.

I don't think the makers of "The Siege" or "Enemy of the State" were uniquely prescient exactly; but a couple films that were written off by some as paranoid, almost counter-culture phenomenon are truly high art after the fact.

Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time.

I plan to continue falling for the truth every time the government tells it, however often or rare that might be.

...carpet bomb an entire country...

If that were true, Afghan civilian deaths would be in the millions, not dozens or hundreds.

You might have had a point here, but your grotesque exaggeration undermines all your credibility as a critic of the U.S.

Have you seen "Pearl Harbour?" It's another typical piece of turd-munching American propaganda...

I don't recall seeing one review of Pearl Harbor that did not criticize it for being incredibly inaccurate to the point of stupidity, or anything other than 90 minutes of total crap wrapped around 30 minutes of great special effects. The general reaction in the press was (sarcastically) "Until I saw 'Pearl Harbor', I never knew the U.S. won that battle."

While you're at it, please tell me why a perfectly good Red Cross installation (including inhabitants) was demolished for your war effort;

Maybe in the process of delivering millions of pounds of ordnance some mistakes, however few were made. At least we weren't targeting civilians on purpose, and every time I hear hand-wringing over civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the numbers are rarely more than a dozen or two. All the Taliban had to do was cooperate with us when we asked them to turn over Al-Qaeda members and we made it very clear what we would do if they didn't. By defying us, they declared their allegiance with the terrorist organization in no uncertain terms. Regardless of what you think of the U.S. and its motives, I'm sure most citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, will be musch better off in the long run for our actions, and that's not even why we did it.

Black Hawk Down 'true and well done'? Well, yes, September 11th does seem to have changed people's views of films! Before then, we might have dreamed that Americans would notice that THE REST OF THE WORLD realises that Black Hawk Down was ridiculous, fake, American-enhancing crap, glorifying effectively the fallout of an American massacre - now we realise that everyone else's perspective will be ignored...

uhm, back up a second.. are you implying that Blackhawk Down was based on fictional events ? Thats what its sure sounds like, if not you seem to be making the suggestion the events were grossly exaggerated. Well Smiley Ben, why dont you send an email or two to the soldiers (yes they are available) that were involved in that political debacle. There were two interviews with the soldiers before the movie was made and the contents of the movie clearly reflect what they gave witness to.

The accounts of Somalian people also "involved" should also be read. And maybe the accounts of historians, UN investigators and journalists?

"Black Hawk Down" is a propaganda film, based on real events in which real people died for stupid reasons. A real tragedy occurred, but the film only shows a distorted view of what actually happened, and a very distorted view of why it happened.

How much time does the film give to the massacre of 54 people by US forces during a peace discussion? Or the firing of missiles into civilian areas by the US?

Maybe you should read what the rest of the world can read, in articles like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273 ,4 344998,00.html

and rely less on semi-official propaganda. Do you think "Zulu" and cowboy movies are accurate? They're based on true events too, you know.

Please read this [slashdot.org], as well as this [slashdot.org]. Besides the fact that you're completely offtopic (and if I hadn't used my moderator points yesterday, you'd be going _down_), AND the fact that you should have been spouting your anti-US hate when Katz reviewed BHD, your arguments are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cheers.

Considering you began a post with, "Idiot," and continue to assert that a thread re a disputed statement (about Black Hawk Down) which appears in the text of the parent article,
you might want to tone down your derogatory, sneering messages a tad.
You're probably not the best person to be rallying against Ad Hominem attacks in this thread, after all.

[...] you'd have noticed that the point of it was not the offtopic bit [...]

So what? Are people no longer able to take issue with disagreeable statements simply because they were not the overall point of the message? If we hold this as the standard for logic, the moon is fuchsia. And good luck disputing that claim in this thread, bud.

No, he is implying that Blackhawk Down was based on how Americans (esp. the military) want to see the facts. At least that's what it sounds like to me - but then I'm not American, and we know that Americans want to see things the way they would like them to be, so that's probably why you read his post that way.

The United States was repeatedly cautioned by other nations to not involve themselves in Somali affairs, as they were a mish-mash of various warlords each having armed forces and all being about as sane as a bucket of loons on a Sunday.

The United States, however, being pricked repeatedly by one particular of these warlords, decided that they, being smarter and stronger than the nations who warned them, would take care of this pesky warlord.

Their execution of this plan was fatally flawed. The soldiers were not familiar with the methods of fighting employed by the locals. They did not know how to act effectively when a crowd of civilians acted as shields for the militants. Basically, the entire effort receded into a "Cover each other and back the hell up" scenario, which just barely managed to get the bulk of US Soldiers out alive.

Heroism? Where? What was heroic? Bad orders came down based on bad policy, executed by ill-prepared soldiers. Is it heroic to survive?

I would gladly send an e-mail to the soldiers involved. Particuarly John Stebbins (name changed to John Grimes for the movie). Ewan MacGregor's character -- You know him? The one who failed in attempting to join the regular forces three times during the Gulf War, before somehow being permitted to join the Rangers? Unfortunately, he probably isn't too easy to get ahold of [nypost.com] these days.

The movie was grossly exaggerated and removed from any meaningful context. As a result, it cannot be called "truth". It is entertainment, not a historical document.

On behalf of the United States Army and the soldiers who made it out of Mogadishu (and those who didn't):

FUCK YOU.

On behalf of the tribal elders massacred by United States military hardware whilst in the midst of attempting to convince their more fiery counterparts of the benefits of peace, a massacre that brought about a declaration of war from Aidid that led to the Mogadishu disaster...

Um, fuck US Foreign/Military policy?

Because, really, if you care about those men who died and those who lived through something awful, then that's who you should be directing your vitriol towards.

THINK for a second. A bird is capable of bringing down some of the most modern jets. A helicoptor is among the most vulnerable of military aircraft because small arms damage to a blade could cause it to fragment, bringing the whole thing down.

You and your super-high-tech nerdy computer are easily taken out with a tossed rock. What a shithead YOU are because you can be taken down with a mere ROCK!

Our modern military does not mean our soldiers are invulnerable. Quit watching Star Trek and crap and think about the REAL world for a moment. There is no invulnerability.

As for your other nonsense...are you DEFENDING murderous looney warlords? Ahhh, poor widdle warlord got taken out. He was such a cute widdle cuddly pookie. You, candyass, are a freak.

There was an article somewhere that discussed a pirate version of BHD making it into MOG. The opinion of the Somalis was that it accurately protrayed the events of those 2 days. If anything the movie minimized the extent that the millitia was using women and childeren as shields, ( ie laying prone on the ground with a wife on eiter side and two kids sitting on your back.

...just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11. Yes, it may seem lame after the event but it was made before the event while we all slumbered peacefully in our false sense of security. Including you, Katz.

To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.

Should it have been released? That's up to the viewer to decide. As far as the studio's concerned it was a business decision. "Do we not release it and lose our investment, or release it and, maybe, recoup some of our money?" Business, plain and simple.

I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't. The whole premise is as lame a Katz presents it. It's not because the movie is out of touch for it's time, but because we are the ones who are no longer in touch with that genre.

According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.

Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.

The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.

UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.

Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.

The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.

Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."

Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:

"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.

The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."

After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.

The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.

The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.

Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.

I went to see Collateral Damage over the weekend and it was not that bad of a movie... A decent plot, and Arnold has some amazing one-liners like "I'll show you collateral damage!"

But it's not as chilling as Enemy of the State, the Will Smith movie where his character, lawyer Robert Dean, is thrown into a whirlwind of coverup and espionage by rogue NSA agents.

The movie argues that privacy has been invaded too much, that we need more freedom. The NSA agents say that we need more surveillance because America has many enemies and the American people don't realize it.
At the time I first saw it, it sounded like alarmist propaganda. When I saw it last night, it shut me up.

We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.

hmm... my mother always told me not to judge a book by its cover. judging a movie by its number of action sequences and ending credits seems ok though.

In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists.

if Jon could offer some insight how exactly this changed in our post-9/11 world, he should write it up in a separate series of editorials. terrorists are NOT evil because they hide in the bushes/caves, occasionally jumping out of their lair and picking on some country for no particular reason.

Watching the film, you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery.

oh, the problem is with me here. i am what Jon would call a 'reluctant viewer'. i suppose i was wrong to think that terrorists are evil because their methods and attempts to get a nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal for the purpose of eventual retaliation are an unacceptable practice under the UN convention.

in my post-9/11 world, i should become oblivious to obvious political causes and consequences of world terror, and watch a movie IF and ONLY IF i can identify with a middle-aged superhero lead character, and whether or not the movie is sensitive and realistic enough in light of recent events.

These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful.

a much more credible writer has said 'comedy is tragedy plus time'. of course he wasn't talking about the world press, or 5,000 dead people, or soldiers bombing caves in Afganistan with smart bombs, or even about the next hollywood flick. in fact, i don't know what the hell he was talking about. but Jon's cause is clear and powerful. he is crawling with high-blown rhetoric in his hand, around the hills of bad plots and inaccurate historic accounts, into the caves of heroic soldier portrails and media coverage, to get to the heart of what is wrong with the next firefighter vs. terrorist action blockbuster...

Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken.

oh yeah, and something about said spring chicken not being in enhanced by reality.

In what way can you you possibly consider this article as either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?

This absolutely does not belong here.

First of all, it is a review of some dumb Arnie movie. Second, it goes off on patriotic tangents which have nothing to do with either the movie being reviewed or the forum in which it is reviewed. Third, from all accounts of the actual events behind Black Hawk Down, the poster did not bother to check the facts.

It seems like this article is more of an excuse to bring someone's political views to the public than an actual movie review.

I just do not see why anyone would view this as appropriate material for/..

There must be other submissions for the editors to choose from which would be vastly more appropriate for being printed as a/. article. If there are no other submissions, the editors should do themselves a favor and print nothing.

In the spirit of Book-A-Minute Classics [rinkworks.com], here's an alternative review of Collateral Damage. There's no need to plow through another Katz-ian monologue, when an ultra-condensed review will suffice. Here we go:

Yes, this movie sucks. It's mostly predictable, there's nothing new here. If you came to the theater expecting something on the order of "Die Hard", or "Indiana Jones", you'd be disappointed.

However it doesn't suck that much. It could've sucked much, much worse than it did. It was clear to me, when I sat down, that the flick is going to blow. With my expectations already lowered, the movie didn't really turn out to be that bad.

Yes, it's the typical output of the paint-by-numbers Hollywood screenplay mill. Still, I think the movie did make a couple of valiant attempts at being original. Ahnold's, uhhh.... impression of Mike Tyson was completely unexpected. And it was funny. And it did seem, at first, that Ahnold was going to end up bedding down whatsherface. The way that character actually turned out to be was also unexpected.

So, go and see the movie on a bargain matinee, and check your brain at the door. Or wait for it to come up on video. You could do worse. There's plenty of crap out there that's even worse than "Collateral Damage".

i'm getting sick of hearing arnold getting dumped on. sure hes getting older, but we have the term "middle aged" not only to point out that they arent young anymore, but also that they arent old. and so i propose this- let's just assume you're "young", 20 to 30 years old: if you can say that arnold is getting old and loosing what he's got AND THEN you yourself can honestly say you're in better shape as the 20 to 30 year old you are then he is at his age, then maybe its ok for you to dump on him. i bet not many of us would earn that right!

While I realize that your intellectual credibility has cemented itself somewhere around "Nil", I feel obliged to note that wrapping yourself up in a flag will neither increase it nor add any other sort of credibility to your ranting.

Please read Mr. Ebert's review [suntimes.com], which tackles the same issues as yours does (Pre/Post 9/11), but does so in a clear, concise, and intelligent manner. Do not be so eager to put on 9/11-tinted glasses in the same manner that you did Columbine-tinted glasses prior to the terrorist attack.

Your references to Black Hawk Down betray your complete lack of familiarity with the history surrounding that mission. Please do some research before using Mogadishu in your writings. It's actually getting to be very worrisome, since so many people have on so many occasions pointed out how absolutely narrow your focus is regarding that event.

You have managed to write a movie review without providing a review. This is a noteworthy feat but, alas, does not enrich any of your readers. Try to do better, next time.

What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's studio was not the contributing factor. The first time Leno was back on the air, Arnold was the guest, and he said he called into the studio. In tons of promo material for this movie I have heard him say the same thing.

I haven't seen Collateral Damage, and I suppose I probably won't, but I really think you may be coming to a harsher view of it than you should. The United States has made many mistakes in the past. It's entirely inappropriate to paint the US as a white knight, always battling for good in the face of evil because it's untrue. I wish that was the case, but it's not.

Theodore Roosevelt once stated that he believed it was treasonous to not criticize the actions of the President. The public should be trying to hold the government to the highest standards right now. It's a really uphill battle, though..

It's amazing, looking back at the creations our TV and movie industries have come up with in the last decade. Terrorism has been a major theme. Even The Lone Gunmen on Fox had an episode involving diverting a plane that would have crashed into one of the WTC towers. Many movies that would have come out last fall have been delayed or canned.

I worry a lot about the restrictions that may be put on TV and movies in the future, both in written laws and in unspoken agreements. I understand that Back to the Future was edited by TBS, TNT, and NBC to reduce the role of the Libyan terrorists that `Doc' Brown stole plutonium from. I think it's ludicrous! What's going to be edited next?

Looking at Black Hawk Down, I think the real tragedy comes from putting people in a situation they shouldn't have been in in the first place. To me, a member of the public, the action in Somalia was billed as a humanitarian mission. The reality is apparently different, though I don't know if even the troops involved knew anything about that.

I think it's another example of how open and truthful communication is important. When true motives are hidden, good people get themselves into bad situations.

I've seen a lot of things get hidden in the post-9/11 world, so it's been hard for me to believe anything anymore. I avoid the news coverage of our little `war'.. At the moment, I'm taking time to work on figuring out my own life. The people near me have much less incentive to lie to me than the figureheads in government..

I hope that I'll soon find some energy to try and help out in society. I think the community of Linux and other open source developers have seen the value of open communication, even if it occasionally degenerates into silly bickering. It's probably a good idea to get involved in the political process this year, even if it's just at a low level..

When Arnold was on The Tonight Show one of them (he or Leno) made a joke about how the delay of the release of this movie would leave Arnold out of contention for an Oscar. Arnold further joked that "They've passed me over 25 times already."

This is the tone for Arnold's movies. Nobody in their right mind would go see an Arnold movie and expect anything more than, well, an Arnold movie. If ever you walk out of one having expected something else, you just don't know Arnold movies.

In this case, though I have not seen it (yet), I'm guessing that Arnold catches the terrorist, and that while he doesn't bring back his murdered family members, he does exact revenge in much the same way alot of the audience would like to for attacks here in the US. Arnold movies are escapist, entertaining (for some), and delivery what they promise, and that isn't so bad.

Since Hollywood is the pumping heart of mind-control media production for the West, is it any wonder they had films already in the bag designed to keep the embers of war-mongering public hate and nationalistic pride burning brightly?

What blows me away is that they would be so blatent! You'd think they would at least wait until after the 9-11 display, just to keep the books clean, so to speak. The fact that can get away with this sort of thing demonstrates just how little work there is left to do in terms of programming the public.

Oh. And here's an interesting tid-bit: In Toronto, there is a fellow claiming to be a U.S. Navy spy claiming that he had foreknowledge of 9-11. The interesting part is that he was locked up in a Canadian jail back in August. He was screaming and yelling about the impending September attacks, to the point where he signed a document to this effect, had it witnessed and court sealed, several weeks before they happened.

Honestly, did you read the article, look at the evidence that has been presented - and the statements regarding its accuracy, or simply look at the claim and then say "It can't be true"?

Do you have any idea of the amount of extremely important news that is simply ignored, completely and uttterly by the mass media? You can try to excuse it all you want as "Bullshit", but the fact remains, the media fails to report an overwhelming majority of what happens out there. It simply doesn't bring in veiwiers. Which leads to the beleif that things aren't true, that they didn't happen, if the nightly entertainment known as "The News" didn't bother to report them. It is having a catastrophic effect on our nation, one that I fear, will cause us HUGE problems in the future. Why? Because without a proper idea of what is going on, or what has been done in the past, people believe only the bits and peices they are spoon-fed by those with the power to "make" the news. And they are left incapable of holding their leaders accountable, and as a result their nation. And their country becomes a rouge state that serves the interests of their leaders and those in power. While the context of any actions are presented through the filter of the condensed, 99.999% truth free reality that most of the country exists in. It's already happening now. And you can use the old "media bias/conspiracy" smear to discredit anything that isn't convient. But you will only be doing yourself a disservice. Stop ignoring what isn't nice, and start paying attention to it. Open your eyes, shut off CNN and actually LOOK at what is happening out there and don't require CNN, FoxNews or ABC to give the truth their stamp of approval. The notion that such a thing is needed, bodes ill for our world.

Here is a link to a story on the issue by The Tronto Star [torontostar.com].

Perhaps it is now reported enough to be true, for you, but maybe for you it won't be true unless it becomes more popular? Popularity = Truth? A scary concept indeed.

Oh, you hear stuff first on slashdot all the time. Like when Stephen King died.

Try reading the links before you make your smart remarks.

More than half of the significant advances in science and general human knowledge which have gone on to form important foundation stones in our current society, were ridiculed and disbelieved by the supposedly 'educated' masses.

When I look back upon how much energy and effort was put into disbelieving guys like Graham Bell, (Front pagees on newspapers and scoffing articles in respected science journals of the day!), the disbelievers always seemed like such over-stuffed cartoon characters. --Hobbits and Muggles of the first order, who didn't deserve the gifts being offered.

Even as a kid, the lesson here seemed more than obvious.

And yet, I remain baffled that so few people are aware of this endless parade of irony!

Ignorance may be funny, but hobbits en masse are dangerous little fuckers! Women burned alive, and all that. Why would anybody want to number themselves among the willfully ignorant?

This case is prima facie one of an insane person whose rantings closely resembled actual events.

I considered this too, except then I went back and looked more closely, and tried to think about how the event would have gone down in the context of what was happening during his incarceration. . .

"There are going to be attacks on these places!"

"We don't believe you."

"There will be! It's going to happen very soon!"

"Bullshit."

"Okay. I'll write down the targets. We'll have the document court sealed. Then after one of the targets is hit, you'll see I'm not full of shit. Their plan has multiple stages designed to unfold over several years. So let one of them happen, but after you see I'm right, work to prevent the rest!" (Look again at the document.)

And so the list was created, signed & sealed.

The point you're missing is that the document wasn't meant to be a clearly written, self-contained essay designed to pass mustard with flag waving skeptics on Slashdot. (And even if it had been, I somehow doubt it would be enough to convince most twits unless CNN gave it their approval.)

What it is, is a list which was created in the heat of the moment which has no value outside of the conversation during which it was made. It's designed to prove himself to the people who were there for the whole conversation. Now, obviously, the bailiff and judge remember him making noise about this, and they remember the context under which it was written. Nobody is disputing this aspect of his claim. Just because the handwriting looks messy to you, doesn't mean the guy is crazy.

And what about the actions of the U.S. Navy? --A 2000 page document, with a number of dates they actually overlooked and failed to fudge in their rush to disprove Vreeland's claim that he has been working for them for the last fifteen years. What do you make of that? Why would the Navy lie unless he was part of covert activity?

Be careful. I'm not saying that this is hard proof, but you are not using well thought arguments to discount anything. Some people are very prone to sticking your heads back in the sand at the first semi-plausible explanation, ("he's just crazy"). Once they find a simple, half-assed explanation, all other questions are immediately disregarded. That's just sloppy.

Now, I recognize that people must be allowed to make their own choices; it's a violation of free will to force people to open their eyes when all they want to do is roll over and go back to sleep. That's fine.

Compare a movie made pre 9/11 and compare it to the post 9/11 world.
I pretty burned out on Arnold, so i wasn't going to go see it, but if you like Arnold, you'll like this movie.
The fact the he's getting older, for me, makes his roles more enjoyable. I like seeing some human withstanding huge odds, insteady of some unshakable mountain.
Probably why I like Bruce Willis.

(Also, notice the lack of mention of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden when people talk about their outrage at the concept of the killing of civillians - a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out in order to influence the gov'ts of Japan and Germany through the terror of their citizens).

all is fair in love and war, my friend. and to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over "they started it."

"...to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over 'they started it.'"

Excuse me sir, who is this ambiguous 'they'? From what I can see, we've already killed at least 3700 people (see UNH report) who had nothing at all to do with the attacks on September 11th. Furthermore, we have pledged to continue our holy quest until terrorism is erradicated. Now, I might be in the minority in all of this, but I don't see any possible way that terrorism can be wiped from the face of the earth. Whether you like it or not, it's the single most effective way for marginal groups to get the world's attention. Who knew how to pronounce Tajikistan before September 11th? Would anyone care about the catholic/protestant struggle in Ireland if they weren't blowing up busses and harassing schoolgirls and whatnot? I'm not condoning terrorism; I'm simply acknowledging its inevitability in our current global climate. The only way to end terrorism, to wipe it from the face of the earth, is to stop it at its roots. Any effort to try for greater equality and efficacy in the world will be beneficial to this end. Let us examine whether the United States is truely trying to stop terrorism. First, we recommend that developing nations sell their soles to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The policies of these organizations may seem somewhat noble, but it doesn't take much to recognize the rapidly accelerating gap in economic equality in the world over the period that they've reigned over the finances of developing nations. There are a few instances of success with their plans, especially in southeast asia, but I would argue that this success could've come without their intervention. Furthermore, one only needs to look towards Argentina to see disasterous failure of their plans. And what more, the policies of these organizations promote sweatshop labor and corporate control in these nations. It will certainly be interesting to see the state of Afghanistan in 15 years after it fully succumbs to the IMF. Also, despite championing the struggle for democracy as our reason for upsetting the Taliban, Bush continues (and to be fair, Clinton before him) to support dictatorships (pakistan et al) and monarchies (Saudi Arabia et al). Our goals in this war on terrorism are not noble. The war, thusfar, has led to a loss of rights at home, and genocide abroad (see the Time report on the Afghan school slaughter for proof of this). I can guarantee you that in 5 years, US interests will profit greatly off of Afghan labor and property in Afghan soil (eg: gas/oil pipeline through the country) just as they did after the noble affair in Yugoslavia. The real tragedy in all of this, however, is the use of the "Bush Doctrine" by other countries to stamp out rebel groups in the name of anti-terrorism. Clearly, Israel is the best example of this, but there are others. Our country was founded on the idea that those suffering the burden of an oppressive government have an obligation to humanity to overthrow it and create a more just government. In this new bush order, revolution is impossible unless sanctioned by The United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This makes a perfectly stable, bland, and corrupt world. Wonderful for profit, horrible for humanity.

Sorry, by soles I meant souls and there were probably a bunch of other errors in that hastily typed response. I suppose soles is a steller unintentional pun though given the prevelence of shoe-building-sweatshops in a few of these nations. Have a nice day.

Certainly a live and let live attitude could be somewhat more effective than current practices, but I'd argue that we need to go to great lengths to restrain American and international corporations from exploiting developing nations if we aim to stem further terrorism. "Terrorism" will always be the means of revolution - few are peaceful. The Boston Tea Party today, if, say, workers in Bangladesh torched a textile factory, would be viewed as economic terror. It is this shift in our view of dramatic revolutionary action that is so dangerous and will be the most far reaching impact of September 11th. I predict that 100 years from now, the Bush doctrine will be looked at with disdain in its role in acting as the catalyst for a century of oppression. I can only hope that it won't take a century for people to realize this and rebel. Alas, folks are too happy tuning in the telly and turning off their minds to see the marginalization of their lives.

Yeah. I concur but I was in a bit of a hurry. If I'm just writing straight without pausing I don't like to corrupt my writing (if you'll allow me to say that) by inserting things that aren't intended in the flow of speech. It was meant as a from-the-cuff rant and I think an unbroken paragraph enhances that. It also keeps such an unresearched comment from getting undue respect. I believe in what I say, but if I really wanted to say it eloquently I'd've taken more time.

The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

There was a lot of things left out out of the movie(like a presidential administration that wouldn't let us have armor support), but there was almost no fabrication in the movie (and that in the movie is mostly limited to liberties taken with storytelling).

a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out

Actually, the number of "unarmed" civilians and "innocent" civilians was quite less. Hiroshima was a military industrial city; where nearly every occupant was directly involved in the war effort. Given the alternatives, I can't think of a better Japanese target on which to drop Little Boy that would have both achieved the objective of ending the war and resulted in fewer "innocent" casualties.

A "demonstration" of the bomb would not have done it. It needed to be FELT. Proof: The annihilation of Hiroshima wasn't in itself enough. It was only AFTER Nagasaki was eliminated that Japan surrendered. So, the elimination of a city wasn't enough and you think a mere "look at what WE can do!" would be? You. Are. Fantasizing. Rewrite history in YOUR mind - it doesn't change the facts.

In any case, better several thousand of them than hundreds of thousands of their soldiers and ours. Less lives were lost by NOT invading than were lost to the wee little bombs.

...especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed...

...a non-murderous demonstration of the bomb...

Hmm. Let's look at that for a moment. Perhaps, if we had vaporized a small island, to show them what the bomb could do to a city, they would have surrendered without us having to use it.

I'm sure that's why we had to use it TWICE, even though we asked for a surrender after the first one--because they realized how bad it could be, and immediately decided not to pursue things further, in light of the destruction they were facing. Yeah, sure, an island demo would have worked.

Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.

Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:

We dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on Tokyo warning that we had a new weapon of incredible destructive power, and would use it if Japan did not surrender. This was several days before August 6th (though I don't recall the exact date). We gave them fair warning.

August 6th: we nuke Hiroshima, using a uranium-235 device known as "Little Boy." The bomb hits very close to the target (within 500 feet, if memory serves--extremely good, for the time).

August 7 and 8: we drop tens of thousands of leaflets on the Japanese, reminding them of the bomb we just dropped (which, by the way, decimated a large portion of your city, with one bomb, and you couldn't stop it), and that we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We called Emperor Hirohito and asked for a surrender, warning him personally that we'd drop another one if he didn't surrender. He didn't. The fact that he didn't surrender after an actual use, on his people, is probably pretty good evidence that he would not have surrendered to a mere demonstration.

August 9th: we drop a plutonium-239 implosion-type device, known as "Fat Man," on Nagasaki. This bomb misses the target by over half a mile, but still obliterates the primary target--a pleasant side effect of having that much power is that you don't necessarily need the accuracy afforded by modern Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), though it is still nice to have.

We drop more leaflets, and call Hirohito again for a surrender. This time, he decides it might just be a good idea.

Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.

To answer the charges you make in your reply:

Had to, in the sense I just discussed. Best option of a sorry lot--unfortunately, war is like that sometimes.

Just wanted to test it again? We conducted dozens upon dozens of tests of nuclear weapons, in our desert, on islands, underground, and possibly even upper-atmosphere. We didn't need Hiroshima as a testing grounds. Did we study the effects? Hell, yes! But we still study the effects of simple 500lb "dumb bombs," looking for ways to improve them, and seeing their effects against different types of targets, so we can optimize for different types of targets. Not availing ourselves of a research opportunity would just be foolish.

Your example of mugging is a complete non-sequitor. A better example would be "I had to shoot him twice because he hadn't succeeded in not continuing to attack me by the time I was done shooting him the first time." This was not a random mugging of an uninvolved individual--this was an attempt to end a war, a war which was started by the other side (perhaps you remember a little sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), a war which was likely to drag on for some time, with many more lives lost, if it wasn't ended decisively.

Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.

It's pretty much something we got in our genes - you can't really argue with that - OK, the 2 snipers who volunteered to be dropped in a death trap in order to save their mate's lifes - now that more heroic, but fighting for your own is pretty much instinct - unless you're a tad bit suicidal or sumtink

Not entirely true. Ever hear of "fight or flight?" It is the one mysteries of human response leaders of armed forces have wanted to unravel since the beginning of time.

The fact is that some of us can overcome our fears, stand up to death and face it eye-to-eye, while others run for they're lives.

I seem to remember hearing about a previous bombing of the World Trade Center. A van filled with explosives and containers of cyanide (which was destroyed by the heat of the explosion rather than spreading through the building was blown up in the parking garage. That pretty clearly labeled the World Trade Center as a target. So, by your reasoning, the people who died on September the 11th 2001 in the plane attacks deserved it as well. So do people who live in flood plains and die in floods. Or the people who live in earthquake prone regions and die in earthquakes, or the people who live in crime-ridden cites and die in robberies. Sorry, I don't buy it.

You're response is so innane it doesn't ever deserve a reply, but here goes anyway:

The WTC was not an obvious military target except to those who chose to make it, so nullfies that argument right off. As far as the rest of your argument, yes of course anyone who chooses to live in dangerous areas deserves his fate.

Really, think about it for a moment:
"Ohhh, looky, a live volcano! I think I'll build my house on it's side!"

And that means what in regards to the actual heroic events in Somalia? Or the other men who did NOT rape their child/daughters?

The military asked and got that particular character's name changed in the movie because they didn't think it appropriate (either) to glorify THAT particular individual's actions given his later, disgraceful behavior.

That mission in Somalia was a success too, forget not. They DID get the warlord and his close advisors...

1) "nothing in that movie really happened that way" - Tell us how it actually went down. You were obviously either there or have access to carefully researched information, right? The author of Black Hawk Down spent thousands of hours researching his book, most of which was originally serialized in the Philadelphia Enquirer.

2) "paid for by the US Army" - Interesting theory, but false. The US Army cooperated with Ridley Scott in filming the movie, but they don't bankroll the studios.

3) "The US troops committed many war crimes in that country" - A sensational claim, but where are your facts?. I was in Somalia, from December, 1992 and March, 1993 with the 10th Mountain Division. The only war crimes I saw were the butchered bodies of dozens of people slaughtered by the clansmen of Omar Jess, left to rot half-buried outside of Kismayo.

4) "pullback triggered Rwanda genocides". - This is totally outside the spectrum of discussion about Somalia, but think about what you write. The pullback of American forces somehow compelled hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to slaughter each other? No, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda led to the slaughter. Your explanation is even more absurd than saying that because Germany was humiliated in World War One, it was the fault of the Allies that Hitler killed millions of innocents.

5) "US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard of the natural environment... feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US." - I agree with you that the United States has not always played fair, particularly with Central America and East Asia. But I would argue that the reason the US is a target for frustration and hate is not so much that it has committed crimes (because on balance, many people around the world, in spite of your view, see that the United States has done many good things), but that the US is the sole dominant power economically, culturally, and militarily.

Being that powerful makes the US a target - plain and simple. Interestingly, the very demand for political, economic, and cultural freedom that the US has helped to generate is now creating such a strong backlash.

Do you really think that Osama bin Laden is primarily motivated by a desire to punish the United States for its behavior in Guatemala, or for its immense appetite for fossil fuels (which led to the staggering wealth of the Saud family and thereby bin Laden's own family)? No, he's motivated by a very narrow, fanatical view of Islam, and by a lust for power. He isn't being inclusive. He doesn't want a happier world for you and me. He's not seeking balance. He wants a world dominated by his militant view of Islam.

Is the United States to blame for this man? Certainly the desire of many people around the world to find some sort of spiritual clarity in a time of overwhelming materialsm can be traced back to US hegemony.

But before we simplify it down to "the US brought this on itself," and start spreading around a "rest of the world vs. the US" mentality, imagine for a moment some of the other options.

The UN is not an effective world government yet, and likely won't be for some time to come. Given that power abhors a vaccum, who would you have lead the world?

Would it be Russia? China? Perhaps the UK? France? Italy? South Africa? Chile? Brazil? Which nations would advocate freedom of speech and religion? Which would rebuild Europe and Japan after fighting to save the world from fascism? Which would defend the rest of the world from an ideology antithetical to individual freedom?

See, the great thing is, we could find lots of things to fault any one of these nations on. Give them immense power and see how well they wield it. In truth, no matter what nation is dominant, it will always be a handy scapegoat. Any number of ills can be easily heaped upon them.

After all, it's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to look in the mirror.

I see by the posts replying to you that most Slashdot readers are Yankees. Actually, considering the Slashdot tribe's values (freedom, love & harmony, etc) it is interesting to view their attitudes towards such things as the September 11 warning. I have tuned into various news broadcasts on shortwave radio from around the world, and it is surprising and VERY shocking the strong 'slant' that the American news has towards the US being the innocent hero and the rest of the world being profit potential or security risk. I am certainly glad the US doesn't control the international media, put it like that...

Whoa nelly. You can't just lay that at the doorstep of the US, China, etc...the BIG guys. ALL countries do exactly the same thing, NO EXCEPTIONS. There are NO truly altruistic countries anywhere. None. They wouldn't be doing their job, for one thing, if they weren't looking out in some fashion for the best interests of their people (such regimes are the first to go). It is when such activity comes at cross-purposes of another that you get the fighting conflicts.

I put my bets on arrogance - they really did (still do) believe they're the lords of the world and can do anything. Obviously, they've been mistaken.

On the other option: According to various sources, 300-500 or over 1000 africans, most of them innocent civilians, were killed. Is that not enough or why are you talking about artillery strikes into a city ???